| 0 |
Subject: Roster Value versus Points
Posted by: Deathchino
- [58027253] Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 18:57
Hi. I'm sure this topic has been touched on before, but I'd like to get some other opinions on the comparative worth of RV and Points. This year I purchased 3 teams, and followed a different strategy for each of them. The first, "Zulu Nation", was drafted with balance in mind, but leaning toward getting points. The second "ming dynasty" was drafted for RV over points, but it sucks and I don't even want to talk about it. The last "Deathchinos" was drafted without any regard to points, but strictly for roster value. In fact, I didn't even bother drafting players for the opening night, in order to get a feeling for which cheapies were going to pan out this season, and which weren't, and who the big gainers were going to be early in the season. However, due to lower price jumps this season, and a complete lack of "where did that come from" cheapies (other than Tinsley, whom everyone had anyways), this strategy did not pay off. However, that team has recovered somewhat, and now Zulu Nation and Deathchinos stand as such.
Zulu WWR - 75
RV - 54.86
Deathchinos WWR 896
RV - 56.7
Both have basically comparable rosters and number of trades (1 and 0). While Deathchinos is really struggling ranking wise, I've maintained that it really isn't THAT inferior of a team to Zulu Nation, and that by the end of the season it should be right there in the mix of things. My question is this. Just based off those numbers I gave you, who is doing better, Zulu or Deathchinos? Also, how much of an emphasis does everyone put on gaining points this early in the season? And how many points would you give up in order to gain 1 million in extra RV? Personally, I'd go as high as 150 points. . .Finally, has anyone else experimented with not drafting for the opening night? How'd it work out? Sorry, this post kinda rambles on and on. . . . . |
| 1 | the infinite pusssy
ID: 279311515
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 19:12
|
i'm goin for both...
wwr - 52
rv - $56.55
..its all about picking your spots on which money trains you wanna get on - weighing their risk and potential payoff...having said that, i sold tinsley at the wrong time, and thats costed me about 30 spots in the rankings, but i didn't wanna sacrifice my cash, and i hope its worth it.
|
| 2 | GraffitiKnightz
ID: 1810422518
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 19:14
|
Very Interesting post. I would say that Zulu is better off. I'd rather have 150FP, than have $1Million extra roster value. Roster Value is nice to have but many of the top players at each position aren't necessarily the most expensive (tinsley, kobe, carter, brand, divac, brad miler, etc).
As well looking back i definitely would have put in three teams. I only entered one, and it is tough going up against other GM's who have two and three teams each.
|
| 3 | the infinite pusssy
ID: 279311515
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 19:24
|
an extra million should buy you at least 20-50 points *every week* if things work out right...in the long haul, that adds up.
|
| 4 | GraffitiKnightz
ID: 1810422518
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 19:28
|
infinite, please explain how you figure this.
|
| 5 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 19:56
|
Without giving this a lot of analysis...
If all efficiently priced players were priced at about 4.5 TSNP/G/$million, then a $1 million upgrade would get you about 13-18 TSNP per week. But the most popular cheaper players are usually priced more attractively, so that it would be unusual to get that marginal productivity out of an upgrade.
20-50 TSNP per $1 million per week sounds VERY aggressive, especially as an "at least" figure. I'd say 7-18 TSNP is a more likely weekly pickup, on average - assuming you aren't trading out of an injured player or a real dog.
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 20:10
|
I just did a little bit more analysis, and it supports my earlier supposition.
If your roster is pretty close to the efficient frontier (i.e., you have the best producing roster given your value contraints), then you should expect to get about 3 TSNP/G per $million of extra value. If you assume 3.5 games per week, that equates to 10.5 TSNP per week.
Using current prices, for a $55 million roster you can squeeze out about 344 TSNP/G. (I doubt if most of us are getting that much, however. If you upgrade to $60 million, the most efficient roster should produce about 358 TSNP/G, which is only 15 TSNP/G more. That pickup of 15 TSNP/G seems to hold pretty steady from $65m to $70m as well.
Now, I'm not disputing that sometimes you can upgrade more efficiently, especially if you are selling a player who is not so efficient. But when valuing the extra point potential over the duration of the season, I don't think you can assume much more efficient upgrades, nor do I think you should assume much better than 3.5 games per week.
|
| 7 | DR Stars
ID: 4211161321
Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 22:46
|
That's why you are the Guru...
Thanks
|
| 8 | the infinite pusssy
ID: 17250169
Mon, Nov 26, 2001, 10:23
|
it all depends on the situation - but the difference between a $4 mil and $5 mil center, or 1 mil in any position can oftentimes result in at least 20 points difference over the course of a week.
of course there are always cheapies to be had which optimize your tsnp/g, and as you get a higher roster value, the additional million makes less and less of a difference
but - there are those times when an extra 100k to 1mil will dramatically improve your team as it allows you make another "notch" upgrade.
i haven't researched this hypothesis of mine, its more of a gut reaction, and based on what i've seen happen over the past 3 years - i agree 20 tsnp might be a bit agressive, but it most certainly would be 10 tsnp/week, which translates into 100's of points over the long haul.
|
| 9 | DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Mon, Nov 26, 2001, 10:27
|
Sometimes you want to make a trade for a gain of 20 but are short 300k, and you have to settle for another roster that's maybe 1.5 mil less, but also produces a lot less. It's not an exact science.
|
| 10 | C-Dawg
ID: 161042610
Mon, Nov 26, 2001, 10:30
|
you just have to find an even balance. It's good to have 1 maybe two money trains on your team at a time. Dedicate the rest of your players to schedule. If they have a good schedule they will most likely be going up anyways. Unless they are playing horrible or are injured obviously.
|
| 11 | E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Mon, Nov 26, 2001, 10:37
|
I'd say. This morning I went to make my planned trade on one team from Vince to GP and guess what??? I was 10K short. OOOuch!!!
I guess paying attention also counts for something. ;)
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|